A comparison of thermal drones and camera trap population estimates for Sitka black‐tailed deer in Alaska

One of the most difficult challenges for wildlife managers is reliably estimating wildlife populations. Camera traps combined with spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models are a popular tool for population estimation. They have limitations, however, including long data processing times. Drones with thermal imagery are an emerging tool for estimating wildlife populations, but how they compare to other methods remain poorly studied. We compared the use of camera traps and SCR models to drone surveys for estimating population densities of Sitka black‐tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis on Afognak Island, Alaska. We deployed 26 camera traps from 1 September until 6 October 2022 and individually identified males using antler characteristics, for the SCR model. At the same site we conducted three drone surveys between October and December 2022, identified sex composition and obtained deer counts. The estimated density from the SCR model was 3.7 males ± 0.8 (SE) km ‐ 2 , and 14.1 ± 3.1 adults km ‐ 2 of clear‐cut forest. Results from the drone survey produced similar estimates with 2.1 ± 0.9 males km ‐ 2 and 13.4 ± 1.6 adults km ‐ 2 . The similarity in estimates suggests that both methods converged on an accurate representation of the population in this habitat, but these methods diverge in levels of sampling effort, duration, and financial cost. Camera traps offer further insights on behavior and home‐range size but require longer data processing times, can be subject to malfunctions, and are difficult to deploy and maintain in remote areas. Drones are subject to legal restrictions, have difficulty in closed canopy habitat and can be initially costly, but they provide results faster and require less data analysis. Camera traps and drones are useful for determining population dynamics but are subject to their limitations. Wildlife managers should make survey decisions based on their specific goals, habitat type, focal species ecology and financial limitations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Wildlife Biology
Published
2024-11-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01360
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A comparison of thermal drones and camera trap population estimates for Sitka black‐tailed deer in Alaska

Amael Hinojo, William A. Wall, Shannon P. Finnegan, Maximilian L. Allen et al.
1 citations
Wildlife Biology
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
0.46
article

A comparison of thermal drones and camera trap population estimates for Sitka black‐tailed deer in Alaska

Amael Hinojo, William A. Wall, Shannon P. Finnegan, Maximilian L. Allen, Peter Olsén, Sarah Monod
article en
1 citations

Abstract

One of the most difficult challenges for wildlife managers is reliably estimating wildlife populations. Camera traps combined with spatial capture–recapture (SCR) models are a popular tool for population estimation. They have limitations, however, including long data processing times. Drones with thermal imagery are an emerging tool for estimating wildlife populations, but how they compare to other methods remain poorly studied. We compared the use of camera traps and SCR models to drone surveys for estimating population densities of Sitka black‐tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis on Afognak Island, Alaska. We deployed 26 camera traps from 1 September until 6 October 2022 and individually identified males using antler characteristics, for the SCR model. At the same site we conducted three drone surveys between October and December 2022, identified sex composition and obtained deer counts. The estimated density from the SCR model was 3.7 males ± 0.8 (SE) km ‐ 2 , and 14.1 ± 3.1 adults km ‐ 2 of clear‐cut forest. Results from the drone survey produced similar estimates with 2.1 ± 0.9 males km ‐ 2 and 13.4 ± 1.6 adults km ‐ 2 . The similarity in estimates suggests that both methods converged on an accurate representation of the population in this habitat, but these methods diverge in levels of sampling effort, duration, and financial cost. Camera traps offer further insights on behavior and home‐range size but require longer data processing times, can be subject to malfunctions, and are difficult to deploy and maintain in remote areas. Drones are subject to legal restrictions, have difficulty in closed canopy habitat and can be initially costly, but they provide results faster and require less data analysis. Camera traps and drones are useful for determining population dynamics but are subject to their limitations. Wildlife managers should make survey decisions based on their specific goals, habitat type, focal species ecology and financial limitations.

Wildlife Biology
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US), Illinois Archaeological Survey (US)
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
0.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.